Senator Paul Considers Filibustering the Syria War

On a media call to discuss the war just now, Senator Paul said, “I can’t image that we won’t require 60 votes on this. Whether there’s an actual standing filibuster, I have to check my shoes, and I have to check my ability to hold my water.”

Phone calls to his office are running more than 10 to 1 against intervention.

Let’s just get real. Filibustering wouldn’t help his cause anyway, it just delays the inevitable. Second, who the heck filibusters an attack! If he has a problem he is a senator, he actually has the influence to speak in front of his congressional contemporaries. A filibuster is just like throwing a tantrum, and is a slap to the face of democracy. Any way if the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD was against an attack, Rand Paul would almost certainly be for one just to oppose any attempts at progress by someone in the opposing party. I’m fine with him not wanting an attack, in fact part of me agrees, but filibustering? That is just a straight up childish act that may put innocent people in danger.

“I think the war may escalate out of control, and then we have to ask ourselves, ‘Who is on America’s side over there?’”

The answer is “no one”. Our only “friends” are on the American taxpayer dole. Forty years ago there were people who actually liked or admired us over there, but decades of interventionist/neocon foreign policy put paid to that.

@Jacob Roddam: You said “Any way if the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD was against an attack, Rand Paul would almost certainly be for one just to oppose any attempts at progress by someone in the opposing party.” Are you new to following politics? You have no idea who Rand Paul is or what the Liberty movement in this country is all about.

I think if Paul ends up filibustering this idiotic military intervention it could really put him on the map for the next Presidential race. I think there’d be a lot of liberal young people out there who liked Ron but were iffy about Rand.
If they can see him standing up to the long admired Obama when they see Obama behaving like a hypocrite, that’s going to make a lasting impression on a lot of young usually liberal leaning voters.

All of you folks know that anyone that types full paragraphs with a specific political bent in reply sections are paid by the government .02 a word/ to infiltrate and bend public opinion, right?
Have you never heard of Cass Sunstien? -check out his paper involving infiltrating groups and doing exactly what I am claiming-
He just went back in public service to be the head compliance officer for the NSA.

My point being, its pointless to argue with people like that guy above, he gets paid to argue and spam the government message.

I think the “reason” for a filibuster is that IT WOULD THEN require 60 votes in favor to pass it.
Also, if the US has so much proof, let them go to the UN as this is an international matter and we have not been attacked by Syria and if they fail there (UN) go take the evidence to the Court in the Hague! that is my 2 pesos.

Early projections are that Obama is going to have more strength in the Senate than in the House on this resolution. A fillibuster (extended debate) in the Senate may be a tactical advantage if delays the Senate vote until after the House vote and if the House votes it down. Then the steam will be taken out of the war proponents in the Senate and the matter may be dropped by reason of not having enough votes (60) to end debate. Then Obama will have neither house of the Congress on the record behind him and any attack he orders on his own will risk being viewed by a majority of the American people as illegitimate – something unprecedented in U.S. history.

I think filibustering would undercut the principle that Congress should decide whether to authorize intervention in Syria. It would hand the President a gold-plated excuse to proceed without congressional approval in this instance and in the future.

The house also holds the purse strings. They don’t have to fund this war adventure. Obama can do so out of his own pocket—to “save face”. I find it absurd that McCain thinks we should go to war for our “credibility” when it was Obama who first shot off his mouth and said years ago “assad must go” and then said the red line lingo. Now WE pay for that. news flash….we have already lost credibility and it is because we keep meddling in other nations affairs.